Citizenship Amendment Act 2019

We have witnessed a sea change in the approach of National Democratic Alliance government since the 2019 election towards addressing issues that have been long in the election manifesto of BJP, compared to the previous five years. Many people were expecting that 2019 general elections will produce a much reduced mandate in the backdrop of the state assembly results in Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Rajasthan which were held just before the general elections. But the mandate received by the NDA was much bigger than last term. We have seen that not just in Lok Sabha but also in Rajya Sabha NDA has been able to muster a majority with the help of parties which are not in formal alliance with BJP, like Biju Janata Dal and AIADMK.

With this stronger mandate from the people of the country, BJP has found itself in a position to implement the long held promises in its manifesto. We have seen the long awaited scrapping of Article 370 which was seen as unexpected in terms of the swiftness with which it was executed. While the dust had not yet settled on Article 370, NDA went ahead and addressed another difficult problem of what to do about the crores of refugees from neighbouring states who have been living stateless in India for decades. Since partition of India in 1947 and the further splitting of Pakistan in 1971 after a mass genocide of East Pakistan population by Pakistani Army and its supporting militias, an overwhelming majority of whom were Hindus, there have been several waves of immigration of religious minorities from Pakistan into India.

There is almost daily news on the persecution that religious minorities face in the self declared Islamic countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. There are hardly any Sikh and Hindu citizens left in Afghanistan since the advent of Taliban. The Population of religious minorities has seen a steady decline in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Even in the population which was left after the initial population exchange at the time of partition, there has been reduction of more than 50% among the Hindus in these countries. It is no body's case that religious minorities enjoy any semblance of religious freedom in these three Islamic countries. Abduction of Hindu, Sikh and Christian minor girls and forced conversion after marriage is a common occurrence in Pakistan's Sindh province where majority of Hindu population of Pakistan lives. In Bangladesh also restrictions on Durga Puja, destruction of temples and forced occupation of property of Hindus is very common. All these of these countries are constitutionally Islamic states which discriminates against religious minorities by Law.

Religious minorities from these three countries in the subcontinent are estimated to be close to 2 crores and are living in India stateless for decades. India has given citizenship to such refugees in past via executive orders. Some of these instances have been cited during the parliamentary debate over the citizenship amendment bill. While the refugees from Pakistan have been absorbed as citizens in batches, the most contentious issue has been about the twin problem of refugees and illegal economic immigration from Bangladesh. It is no body's case that the majority Muslims from these countries can claim state oppression based on religion. The qualitative difference has to be understood that while some citizens who happen to be Muslims may face oppression because of political activism or other reason but the religious minorities face discrimination by state and by the community in large simply for "existing".

Government of India has an obligation towards its citizens to secure its borders and keep a check on illegal immigration. However it is well known fact that over the years GOI has been terribly lax in this effort. Out borders are porous and movement of people and smuggling of goods takes place with impunity. This is a result of a weak state with lopsided priorities. The primary function of the state is internal and external security, but India's spending on this is woefully low. While the socialist welfare state spends its resources and energy in running inefficient loss making public sector companies in areas where the state should simple not operate like running airlines. As a result of this lack of attention wilful or otherwise the borders have been left unsecured and a huge population of illegal migration primarily from Bangladesh has resulting in change of demographics primarily in the norther eastern states, but also in several other parts of the country.

This gordian knot which is as complex as or perhaps even more complex than article 370 had to be cut and it has been cut by the twin actions of Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA) and the Nation wide register of citizens. This nation wide NRC is already part of the Citizenship Act which was added to the act in 2003 in article 14A of the act but it has not been implemented yet. The CAA 2019 essentially provides a one time amnesty to the illegal migrants who have been persecuted in these three Islamic countries in the subcontinent on the bases of their religion and form a minority population their. As has already been mentioned before there isn't much data required to be presented to prove this the religious census in these countries clearly establishes the dwindling populations of religious minorities there, in contrast with flourishing population of religious minorities in India. In fact the population of Hindus is in steady declined in India under the twin pressures of relatively slower birth rate and mostly unethical targeted religious conversion which is directed primarily towards the Hindu population. In Bangladesh in particular there has been large scale targeted persecution of Hindus. It has been established by other sources which I cite here 80% of the 10 million refugees who came to India in 1971 and 80% of estimated 3 million killed in the genocide perpetrated by Pakistan army in then East Pakistan were Hindus.

Under this backdrop of 71 genocide and the partition of the country on religious lines which left a number of religious minority populations in these Islamic states it was and continues to the be responsibility of Indian state to provide refuge to these people who were stuck on the wrong side of the border for no fault of theirs. While it is not in the interest of the Indic civilization that Indic population goes extinct in these states which were once flourishing centers of the civilization. But at the same time India cannot turn its back on these populations who have sought refuge in India and are living here as stateless and send them back to their source countries. There has been recent news of how 500 Hindus who were deported from Rajasthan to Pakistan were en-masse converted to Islam.

In treatment by the Indian state in grant of citizenship or otherwise they should not be considered at par with the illegal economic migrants. While both have entered India illegally one group has entered under threat of persecution based on religious lines and the other for economic benefit. It has been reported in 2014 that as much as 6% of the GDP of Bangladesh is the amount of remittance that the Bangladeshi workers send back home from India. They prefer India because of ease of entry and low cost of migration since they don't need to procure "Passport" etc to come to India. This number is four times of the remittance they receive from Saudi Arabia. This clearly points to the enormity of the problem of illegal immigration from Bangladesh and loss of employment opportunity to own  population in the low end labour market of India.

CAA makes this clear distinction by giving these refugees twin guarantee that they would not be deported if they belong to 6 religious minority population of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh as defined in the Act and by reducing the wait time for their naturalization from 12 years to 6 years of aggregate period of stay in India. This is all that the act does it gives a fast track process for application of citizenship of India by registration or naturalization by these refugees and protection against deportation. It does not take away any right from any one else whether Indian Citizen or a foreign national applying for the citizenship of India or seeking asylum on any grounds. It has to be understood that the refugees need to apply for citizenship. So it is possible that their application may be rejected and they may be denied citizenship. But my interpretation of the CAA 2019 is that they will still enjoy protection from deportation if they belong to religious minorities from these 3 countries as defined in CAA 2019.

Many arguments have been made that this act is against secular principles. Claims are being made that it is unconstitutional. The fundamental logic that such arguments don't answer is that if Indian state can give special rights to religious minorities in India,w can it not give special rights to the religious minorities of these countries in the process of seeking citizenship of India. How can one act be secular but other cannot be secular. The definition of word secular it self is not very well defined. Indian state regularly interfears in the matter of religious activities of Hindus who happen to be national majority but not necessarily regional majority in every state of India. So I do not quite understand how this act fails the secularism test. The individual Muslims from Af-Pak and Bangladesh can still apply for Indian citizenship via the normal process. That right has not been denied to them, only a certain section of population from these countries has been given easier process as against the usually more complex process of acquiring Indian citizenship. Various aspects of the legality of this act have been mentioned by lawyers like Harish Salve.

Some people have argued that a combination of CAA and nation wide NRC is discriminatory towards Muslim Indian citizens since compared to say a Hindu who is rejected in NRC and a Muslim who is rejected in NRC the Hindu will not be expelled but a Muslim would. This is far from the truth and stems from incorrect understanding of Citizenship act and the process of naturalization after CAA and the process of national ID both of which are part of the Citizenship act. As has been explained by home minister several time the NRC process will not look at religion of a person at all. CAA will look at religion only for foreign nationals who apply for naturalization under the new process because of religious persecution in these 3 countries. It would be a weird argument to make that a Hindu who gets excluded in NRC will not be expelled if found to be a foreigner. Only a foreigner from these three countries will logically apply for naturalization under CAA. Why would a Hindu Indian citizen whose several generations have lived in the territory of India claim to be Pakistani and then claim persecution for claiming naturalization? Why would he risk his application being rejected and ending up being truly stateless? This logic is beyond belief. But this is the main argument made by the people who oppose CAA and protest on streets.

People are rioting, op-eds are being written, placard wielding students including law student are protesting over this supposedly unequal treatment that Muslims will get since they cannot claim this illegal way of getting citizenship by naturalization and a hypothetical hair brained Hindu can. Any such attempt will only make the case weaker for such a person and the process more complicated since it will trigger more scrutiny by Intelligence Bureau and may result in a rejection of claim when a perfectly legal way of resolving this issue of lack of documents could be found if not via the executive branch of the government then by approaching judiciary.  IB director had told the JPC on Citizenship Amendment Bill that the immediate beneficiary of this act will be around 31,000 refugees who have already applied for citizenship based on religious persecution. But any future claim while not disallowed will require enhanced enquiry by both Internal and External Intelligence agencies of India.

Now that some groups have challenged the act in court we await the judgement of the Supreme court of India to see whether the Act stays as is, parts of it are struck down or all of it is struck down. But the series of violent riots that have taken place across the country and the student protest in certain colleges where they have blocked normal functioning of the colleges shows that these people are not in line with the principles of constitutional democracy and the duty of a citizen to remain peaceful during public demonstrations etc. These actions also amount to putting pressure on the courts which are hearing this matter currently. Such activities should be avoided and court should be allowed to make a judgement on all aspects of this law.

Zubin is not Nero separatist leadership in valley is

This opinion piece appeared in The Hindu Zubin Mehta and the unequal music.
I was long expecting someone will try to make this Nero analogy. But unfortunately it doesn't stick on Zubin. It does stick on the separatist leaders who have lead the common people of the state to meaningless conflict, death and destruction while accepting diamond studded watches as gifts from Pakistani mentors across the border. Soon someone will argue that the Sindhu festival in Ladakh and the Amarnath yatra should be stopped. Zubin is an artist of world renown, the valley is fortunate to have him perform in Srinagar. Kudos to German embassy for arranging this in spite the terror threat and I salute the artists who came. Get over this separatism. The root of violence is not the Idea of India. It is the destabilization engineered by the ideologues in Pakistan. The same people who destroyed Afghanistan. There is no legitimacy in separatism in valley just as there was no legitimacy in separatism in Tamil Nadu. Get over it.

"Occupation" of the Valley

Let me try and address a particular question of the so called "occupation" of Kashmir valley by the Indian army which is often raised by Kashmiri separatist, Pakistan based terrorist organizations, international "human rights" activists, certain foreign governments and some Indian "intellectuals".

As far as my reading of history goes the Indian Army went to the Kashmir valley in 1947 for the first time when help was sought by both the erstwhile Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and the popular leader Mr Sheikh Abdullah. When it landed in Srinagar airport it brought a sigh of relief to the population and not any fear of so called occupation. Indian Army went to Kashmir to defend Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh from the same forces which continue to threaten it today. To the people who leave no stone unturned to find faults with Army and criticize it I have to say please read some history about the circumstances under which the Army had to be called in both in '47 and in '89.

Historical reasons apart if we look at the present situation in the Valley then a number of foreign governments and international organization have pointed finger at the Indian government regarding the number of civilian deaths that have taken place in Jammu and Kashmir as a marker of "oppression" by the Indian Army. The number quoted has been an estimate of 60,000 civilian deaths since 1989. I am not sure about the figure but assuming it is true and regardless of the circumstances of these deaths, whether they were caused by terrorist violence, militants killed by security forces, extra judicial killings, terrorists convicted to death by courts or civilians caught in cross fire, this estimated number is of course unacceptable. But does it automatically lead to the conclusion that the cause of such a high civilian death number is a result of Army's presence in the valley? Won't the more correct reason be the proxy war being waged in Kashmir by the Pakistani Army and civilians being the victims of this war. Who is the aggressor in Kashmir today? Is it India or is it Pakistan? Then who has the onus of bringing these deaths to an end.

The number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2001 NATO operation is estimated to be a similar figure of 60,000, yet none of these international organizations and foreign governments have accused ISAF forces in Afghanistan as "occupying" forces, when clearly they are foreign while Indian Army is within its own territory. The same governments who were pointing finger at India in the 90's are part of the ISAF forces.

The ISAF forces are now leaving Afghanistan by cutting a deal with Pakistan and Pakistan backed Taliban not because the war has been won but because the cost has been too high for them to sustain. The civilians in Afghanistan now fear the worst because they know that while the present situation is not rosy, the alternative is even darker. Indian Security Forces have been fighting this Pakistan sponsored insurgency for past 23 years yet India cannot give up on Kashmir because the commitment of the Indian Army is to the silent population in the Valley and also Jammu and Ladakh who do consider themselves as Indians.

Doesn't the nation owe to the people of Ladakh and Jammu the same protection and freedom of life that it owes to other citizens of India. Will the Indian army be able to defend Ladakh and Jammu without protecting Kashmir Valley? What about the Kashmiri Pandit minority population which is a refugee in its own state? What does the nation owe to them?

While all complaints of human right abuses deserve to be looked at dispassionately and justice be done but calling Indian Army an occupier in Kashmir suits only the enemies of India because exit of the Army from Kashmir also results in simultaneous collapse of the Indian Nation as it exists today.

Who deserves sympathy?

Who deserves more sympathy the citizens of Kashmir or the citizens of Afghanistan?

Separatist leaders in Kashmir are still living in the past while political leaders in Afghanistan are more progressive today. While Kashmiri leaders incite people to throw stones when a terrorist is hanged, Afghan leaders clearly identify and expose Pakistani interference and have no sympathy for extremist ideology and terrorists. Afghanistan remembers and honors icon of peace and Indian nationalist Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Kashmiri leaders call on people to rally around the so called 'martyr' Maqbool Bhat who was convicted of murder. Young in Afghanistan look forward to watching the next episode of the Afghan Star while the Kashmir Grand Mufti bans a girls music band.

After being completely destroyed in 30 years of violence Afghanistan wants to free itself of ethnic an cultural difference and identifies national integration as the road to peace and progress. Leaders in Kashmir cant think beyond the valley and the old jargon of autonomy. The valley is shutdown because Afzal Guru was hanged for plotting the attack on Indian Parliament on the behest of a foreign nation. Afghanistan has seen more violence and pain, and yet it can hope to transform itself. Today I have more sympathy for the Afghan citizens than I have for the Kashmiri separatists.

There is no Rogue ISI

Ever since 26/Nov Mumbai attacks in the year 2008 the people of the subcontinent are being lead to believe that there are some rogue ISI elements who have been out of control of the Pakistani Army and who have not severed there links with the terrorists and Taliban and who have possibly planned and carried out the attacks. Mr Ahmed Rashid a well respected author and journalist who is an Afghanistan/Pakistan expert had argued in 2008 immediately after that attacks that the attacks were perhaps planned and executed by the al-qaeda along with "disbanded LeT". He had written in an article for BBC "Al-Qaeda is looking for some relief and a diversion... This strategic diversion ploy for the sake of al-Qaeda and its surrogates is the principle motive behind the Mumbai terrorist attacks." He went on to say "Charges that the Pakistan government, army or its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were behind the attack appear unfounded." In the words of the Pakistani government after they finally agreed that the attack was planned in and executed from Pakistan, they were "non state actors".

However in the same year before Mumbai attacks while discussing his book Descent into Chaos in the Conversations With History program with Harry Kreisler Mr Rashid had categorically stated that "there is no rogue ISI". The so called rogue ISI was created to continue supporting Taliban while avoiding detection by the CIA of its activities. Retired Army generals, and ISI men who had worked with the Taliban were given "part time" jobs to go on a "vacation from home for 4 weeks 5 weeks" and work with the Taliban.

Ahmed Rashid - "There is no Rogue ISI" (26:02)

All this has been in public domain for quite sometime it is also in the US government's knowledge for a. long time that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban and keeping it as a "Strategic Asset". A 2007 Congressional Research Service report RS22632 titled "Pakistan and Terrorism: A Summary" released by Wikileaks in Feb 2009 in its summary mentions that "The outcomes of U.S. policies toward Pakistan since 9/11, while not devoid of meaningful successes, have neither neutralized anti-Western militants and reduced religious extremism in that country, nor have they contributed sufficiently to the stabilization of neighboring Afghanistan. Many observers thus urge a broad re-evaluation of such policies."

The report says  "Throughout the opening months of 2007, Administration officials, U.S. military commanders, and senior U.S. Senators issued further incriminating statements about Pakistan’s assumed status as a terrorist base and the allegedly insufficient response of the Islamabad government." it goes on to say "The United States also remains concerned with indigenous extremist groups in Pakistan, and with the ongoing 'cross-border infiltration' of Islamist militants who traverse the Kashmiri Line of Control and other borders to engage in terrorist acts in India and Indian Kashmir. Many analysts consider such activities conceptually inseparable from the problem of Islamist militancy in western Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Domestic terrorism in Pakistan, much of it associated with Islamist sectarianism, has become an increasingly serious problem affecting major Pakistani cities. Separatist violence in India’s Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir state has continued unabated since 1989 with some notable relative decline in recent years. Many experts reject efforts by the Pakistani government and others to draw significant distinctions between U.S.- and Indian-designated terrorist groups fighting in Kashmir and those fighting in western Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in Pakistan’s interior".

The report clearly raises doubt on Pakistan's intentions by stating that "Numerous experts raise questions about the determination, sincerity, and effectiveness of Pakistani government efforts to combat religious extremists. Doubts are widely held by Western experts, many of whom express concerns about the implications of maintaining present U.S. policies toward the region, and about the efficacy of Islamabad’s latest strategy, which appears to seek reconciliation with pro-Taliban militants." The report is so damning that I can go on quoting from the report but it is rather better if the interested reader reads it himself/herself. It is also in my view one of the main inputs if not the cornerstone of the subsequent Obama government's policy in  Pakistan as I have covered below.

Mr Rashid's assertions in the interview to University of California Berkley, and the picture of a typical handler of this "ISI within ISI" fits well people like Hamid Gul a retired ISI chief with links with both Taliban and LeT founder Hafees Saeed. He openly conducts meetings with Hafees Saeed and other Jehadi outfits in Pakistan on a supposed pro Kashmir and anti India platform. There is no dearth for such India baiters in Pakistan who fit the bill of these "ISI within ISI" operatives. The narrative since Mumbai asking for restraint from the people of India and from the GOI at the face of all provocations has been that al-Qaeda  and Taliban affiliates "want to divert attention from the west of Pakistan to the east". On the face of it this argument seems logical and valid. US war in Afghanistan would have been jeopardized by any Indo-Pak flareups, so it was valid for the US to make this argument. But the odd price for this restraint will have to be paid by innocent citizens of India. The perpetrators of Mumbai are still not punished and Hafees Saeed is a free man.

Frankly there are so many diversions in the diversions that no one can say what the real story behind Mumbai is. Was it to divert Pakistan from the west? Or was it planned with an assumption that no trace will be found as to who was behind that attacks? Did the ISI within ISI get embolden with its success in hoodwinking the CIA and felt it was time to punish India as a warning to keep out of Afghanistan? Was the planning for the attack done with  full knowledge that there will be no military response from India after all Pakistan had built up conventional and nuclear military since 9/11 with US military aid. Is it wrong to suspect that the real perpetrators were pretty much the establishment itself rather than any rogue elements?

But what is interesting is to note the response of the United States and India to these Mini ISI's activities. While India replied under the time tested "good faith policy"(I am not sure if it has ever worked) and resumed uninterrupted and un-interruptible dialog with Pakistan. US also had "time tested"(never worked?) response in the lines of continuing to provide aid carrots to its "strategic ally".

Obama government replaced the Bush government in Jan 2009. Under Obama's watch AF-PAK policy was formulated. Under this policy an attempt was initially made to include India too which the Indian government declined. The idea was to engage the whole region for solving Pakistan's problems. India did not want to be clubbed so as to avoid any external pressures on its own national interest, especially pressures to "resolve" Kashmir as an incentive to Pakistan for stop supporting the terrorists. But never the less all said and done after Mumbai we still started dialog with Pakistan "in spite of terrorism". In US a policy change was perhaps undertaken and Afghanistan was brought back in focus. A military surge was ordered but unfortunately at the same time a withdrawal date was announced thus emboldening the Taliban and its friends to dig in and fight it out.

On the aid front United States had now installed an old Pakistan friend and India-baiter Ms Robin Raphel as Ambassador responsible for the targeted civilian aid to "improve the image of United States". At the same time it seems the Pakistani concerns as mentioned in the Congressional Report were being addressed during the drafting of the so called Kerry-Lugar bill sanctioning civilian aid of $1.5 billion per year. When the US congress was pushing President Bush to be tough on Pakistan after his years of leniency for inaction on Taliban as per the CRS report  "In response to U.S. congressional signals of a possible shift in U.S. policy toward Islamabad, the Pakistani National Assembly’s Defense Committee unanimously passed a resolution threatening to end or reduce Islamabad’s cooperation on counter terrorism if U.S. aid to Pakistan were to be made conditional."  later the report says "Other analysts, however, including those making policy for the Bush Administration, believe that conditioning U.S. aid to Pakistan has a past record of failure and likely would be counterproductive."

The Kerry Lugar bill does impose certain restrictions. For civilian aid it requires a certification each year by the special representative to Pakistan (Robin Raphel) to certify that "principal objectives" are being met in order to release the full quantum of $1.5 billion, but is also allows up to $750 million to be released without such certification. The bill also puts a certification requirement for certain military assistance. Limitation on Security-related Assistance for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and a limitation on Arms Transfers for fiscal years 2012 through 2014. Why arms transfers we allowed for another year without certification requirement? I don't know.

Bulk of the arm purchases of conventional variety by Pakistan from the US had already taken place during the Bush-Musharraf years. A CRS report of 2012 on this subject says "Major U.S. arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001 have included items useful for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, along with a number of big ticket platforms more suited to conventional warfare.In dollar value terms, the bulk of purchases have been made with Pakistani national funds, but U.S. grants have eclipsed these in recent years." it goes on to say "The Pentagon reports total Foreign Military Sales agreements with Pakistan worth about $5.4 billion for FY2002-FY2010 (in-process sales of F-16 combat aircraft and related equipment account for about half of this).", It should be remembered that in the 90's the US had denied arms sales to Pakistan. The sale of F16s were done under the garb of using them in counter terrorism operations.

It is always possible for the US government to block transfer of weapons already contracted. A CRS report of Aug 2009 says ", all government-to-government agreements or licensed commercial contracts for the transfer of defense articles or defense services may be halted, modified, or terminated by the executive
branch should it determine that it is advisable to do so. In this context, should the Bush Administration decide that actions taken by the government of Pakistan are contrary to the national security interests of the United States, the President can suspend or terminate existing arms sales agreements or prevent the delivery of weapons previously ordered, as he deems appropriate. The Congress can also pass legislation that would suspend, modify, or terminate any arms sale contract should it choose to do so."

Of course none of these weapons sales were ever suspended. All this while the ISI within the ISI continued to support Taliban and blunt the US army's efforts. Under Obama's watch Osama Bin Laden was found in a safe haven within the garrison town of Pakistan, again the so called "rogue elements" in ISI were blamed to have provided support to him without the knowledge at the "highest level". Then in 2011 there was a border skirmish between Pakistani forces and the American forces in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed. In response Pakistan blocked the supply routes and threatened to evict US from the Shamsi air base. After US apology the blockade was lifted. But the US government had to take some action too so the aid was reduced for a while.

Obama's second administration has now taken office. After the cooling down period of 2011-2012 the relations between Pakistan and US are back on track. Pakistani foreign minister visited US in January and during an interview with Charlie rose said that relations are much better now. I believe they were assured of support from the US government of continued aid and assistance despite their chequered history. The statement from newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry in which he said "aid cut will be unkind" should be indicative.

While all this was going on there was an incident on the LOC in January 2013 in which two Indian soldiers were killed there bodies mutilated and one dead body beheaded by the Pakistani army as claimed by India and as usual denied by Pakistan. This incident was supposedly in response to a previous incident in which one Pakistani solder was killed in cross border firing by India which was in response to Pakistani shelling in which three civilians had died which India claims was to enable cross border infiltration. When India protested to Pakistan about the beheading incident  the Pakistani FM denied any role of her Army and in the wake of Indian Army Chief's statement that "we reserve the right to retaliate at the time and place of our choosing" did not miss the opportunity of her US attention to blame India of "war mongering ".

While all this is important the most important story here is, and what even Mr Ahmed Rashid is now pushing in the west is, that before exiting Afghanistan USA should get a peace settlement done between Pakistan, Taliban and the Afghanistan government to avoid any post withdrawal conflict between the regional players via their proxies in that country. So the mini ISI has pretty much succeeded in ensuring that its interests in that country are served through the Taliban and also ensured that any talks should not happen without its knowledge. One should be reminded that the Pakistanis had detained Mullah Baradar when they found that he was talking to Afghanistan government without their knowledge. In Sep 2011 Burhanuddin Rabbani who was holding peace talks with the Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government was killed in a suicide attack.

What ever happens in Afghanistan after american withdrawal, I am afraid history is witness, that whenever western countries have interfered in this region for their strategic reasons even if it was for a reason as morally justified as stopping terrorism, the effect has been detrimental to the citizens of the subcontinent. In their "strategic interest"  the tilt has well and truly always been in favour of the establishment in Pakistan at the detriment of India. So I doubt if the LeT will be eliminated or the perpetrators of Mumbai be punished by the time US exists Afghanistan. Time will tell and as they say history will be the judge. But one thing is for sure to me after hearing Mr Rashid and seeing what all has happened since his interview in 2008,  there is no Rogue ISI only a clever indirection. I wonder who was deceived. Was it the US government? Was it the Indian Government? Or the people of the subcontinent?

Obama 2.0

Mr Barack Obama has taken oath of his second term in office of the President of United States Of America. His first speech after his oath on 21 January was much appreciate in the media. I could not keep myself from comparing this speech with the speech he gave in 2009 after taking office of his first term and the most important aspect which I was looking for and found, was the skipping of terrorism from any direct mention in his latest speech. In his speech in 2009 he had made a very substantial reference to terrorism when he had said "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." where as in the speech of 2013 he has said that "This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending.". He went on to say "We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war." and "...we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends - and we must carry those lessons into this time as well."

President Obama is no doubt one of the best Orators of our times in the world so his speeches are always interesting to listen to. His latest speech should not come as a surprise to any listener because it was long known that USA was looking for an exit strategy in Afghanistan since the day Mr Obama was sworn in. He winded up Iraq and had to do the same in Afghanistan. Iraq was a war against a regime which could be ended once an alternative regime was established. Ending of wars is always welcome to the people who suffer the pains of war, except for the fact that Afghanistan was a war like no other war. It was not a war against a nation it was a war against certain organizations and group of people with a certain ideology who in Mr Obama's own terms were a "far-reaching network of violence and hatred".  USA may have run out of appetite for war and do not want to fight a perpetual war, but I wonder if their war in Afghanistan has really succeeded. Osama Bin Laden was found in Abbottabad and as we hear about the various drone strikes which USA does with in Pakistan, that they have managed to get several al-qaeda terrorists. But unfortunately the Taliban leadership and several members of al-qaeda leadership have survived. Other banned organizations like the  LeT, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and other al-qaeda affiliates still survive and we all know where all these outfits find a mostly comfortable home. It is is within Pakistan.

From the day the Americans threatened war on Taliban the Pakistani establishment has played a double game with them. It has been established and commented on by many journalists that when the ISI chief under Parvez Musharraf, Mahmoud Ahmad was sent to Taliban leadership to make them break links with al-quaeda he instead encouraged them to dig in and fight it out. He was later sacked by Musharraf. After the US invasion in Afghanistan Taliban leadership was provided a sanctuary in Pakistan. We all know in which circumstances Osama Bin Laden was found within the Pakistan garrison town close to their most important military academy. The Pakistanis continued to support Taliban to regroup and fight NATO forces in Afghanistan while at the same time supporting NATO supply lines in Pakistan in exchange for money. When USA attempted to pursue and punish the Pakistani armed forces supporting the Taliban in 2011 they were greeted with an angry Pakistani reaction which lead to the closure of these very supply lines, which eventually lead to a US apology.  I am reminded of an interview of Hamid Gul the Ex ISI Chief of Pakistan who was one of the master minds of the first Afghan Mujahideen war against the soviets. He continues to openly support the terrorists invading Kashmir. In his interview he mentions by attacking Pakistani forces "the Americans have shot themselves in the foot" since their supply lines run from Pakistan he also threatens the countries north of Afghanistan to desist from providing an alternative route to the Americans because "the fallout will be on them.. this is an irregular warfare .. which can travel across borders".

A lot has changed since the 2011 incident the relations between USA and Pakistan have normalized again, there is talk of settlement with Taliban and centrality of Pakistan's role in it. The 21 January speech of Mr Obama hints at the possible settlement with Taliban which US is contemplating. This is a victory of sorts for the Pakistani ISI. They were saving Taliban as a possible asset to be used once the US exits. They also did not allow any direct negotiations between Taliban and the Afghan government lest they come to an agreement which is not acceptable to them. As being stabbed in the back goes the Obama administration also has its share of people with dicey record when it comes to Taliban I am hinting at the so called "Lady Taliban" Ms Robin Raphel. More about her later but there is little doubt as many journalists and Afghanistan experts and even Afghans themselves have said Pakistan is the problem as far as fighting the Taliban is concerned in Afghanistan.

Coming back to the Obama speeches. As speeches of Mr Obama go I am reminded of a speech he gave to college students in Mumbai during his 2010 India visit. Mr Obama was asked by a student a very pertinent question perhaps stated in such blunt terms that Mr Obama had to use an equally blunt answer. The question was "Why is Pakistan so important to America that it does not declare it a terrorist state?". The answer along with a lot of other explanation was that "Pakistan is a Strategic country, not just for the United States but the world."

When I heard this term "Strategic" in this speech as I was listening to it recently, after having read quite a bit about the history of western influence in Pakistan I was immediately reminded of the effect these influences and interference have had on the people of the subcontinent. It is well known that the very first interference was by the British in creation of Pakistan when after the 1942 quit India movement by the Congress they had firmly decided to support Muslim League in their demand for a separate state. A friendly Muslim state of Pakistan in the subcontinent gave them "strategic" leverage over USSR and it also gave them an ally in the Muslim world. It has been written that the British strategic interest also drove their Kashmir policy. I wonder if Mr Nehru was hood-winked into approaching the UN by Lord Mountbatten when the west had no interest in making the aggressor Pakistan vacate Kashmir for a plebiscite to take place under Indian administration, as Nehru had intended to do. One needs to keeping in mind that the Maharaja had acceded to India after Pakistani aggression in order to save the population of Kashmir from the invaders and Nehru had in Shekh Abdulla's own words no obligation to promise a plebiscite in the first place.

It was also for strategic reasons that the west armed the Pakistani Army and Air Force during the 50's and 60's and confident of their new found strength they planned another invasion in Kashmir ostensibly to raise a revolution which lead to the 1965 war. Is it also for strategic reasons that Pakistan Army was propped up for all these years in ways that allowed it to usurp power from the civil administration all too frequently in Pakistan. There was another "strategic" reason that the west had for providing aid and arms supply to Pakistan during the 80's. It was the first Afghan war that USA fought covertly along with Pakistan against USSR in Afghanistan. That war as we all know is the genesis of the current radical "Islamic Terror" that the world is facing. The current breed of terrorists who have been waging a war on Indian on behalf of the Pakistani's are all a result of the lessons learned by Pakistani Army and the networks built by them with these forces. The rise of Taliban in Afghanistan provided the Pakistani's with a ready supply of afghan fighters to be sent into Kashmir.

One would have thought that 26/Nov attacks in Mumbai would be a turning point in how India would be looking at its policies towards terror emanating from Pakistan. One had imagined that the tolerance for western military and financial support to Pakistan would no longer be so high within the Indian leadership and there would be considerable pressure put on the Americans to link their aid to progress on fighting all kinds of terrorists with in Pakistan. But it seems the support continues. Robin Raphel the wife of late Pakistan ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel who was killed along with Zia-ul-Haq in the plane crash in 84, is a member of the Obama administration's Af-Pak diplomatic group. Ms  Raphel is ex CIA and a known Taliban sympathizer before 9/11. She is infamous in India for her comments about Kashmir in the 90's when she had said "US did not recognize the instrument of accession, as meaning that Kashmir was an integral part of India.”. Ms Robin is responsible for the civilian aid that Pakistan gets from USA as per the provisions of the Kerry-Lugar bill. After the shock of finding Osama bin laden in Abottabad USA had slowed down the disbursements, but after the Dec 2012 talks between USA and Pakistan the aid in her own words "is expected to pick up pace".

The Pakistani Army uses the military aid and reimbursements it gets for building is strengths in conventional and nuclear warfare against India. Substantial portions of aid for civilian purpose and war effort  reimbursements is alleged to be siphoned off for other purposes. So all in all my conclusion is that historically the western powers and China have for strategic reasons of their own kept the Pakistani military on steroids which allows them to punch well above their weight. Their self confidence in defeating any military response from India allows them to continue supporting terror in Kashmir and elsewhere against us. So I wonder, especially in the aftermath of the recent incidents in LOC in January 2013, if the Indian leadership will ever ask the western and eastern friends of Pakistan that when it comes to terrorism "Are you with us? Or are you against us?".